vicky
/
personal-website
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 1 Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

finished april post

This commit is contained in:
Vicky Steeves 2016-06-23 18:15:16 -04:00
parent 513f6806d8
commit a74a553eb3
2 changed files with 21 additions and 7 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

BIN
img/force16_indig1.jpg Normal file
View File

Binary file not shown.
Side by Side

After

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 61 KiB

28
posts/2016/apr20.html
View File

@ -88,23 +88,37 @@
<div align="center"><img src="../../img/force16_illust.jpg" height=50% width=50%></div>
<p class="caption">Taken from <a href="https://twitter.com/PCS_Armory/status/722499116643721216" target="_blank">this tweet</a> from Portland Center Stage</p>
<p>There was a great program of people. I'm going to highlight my two favourites. The first was from Stephen Pinker surrounding how <em>absolutely astoundingly dumb</em> academic writing as become. If you watch nothing else today, please let it be this:</p>
<p>There was a great program of people. I'm going to highlight my two favourites. The first was from Steven Pinker surrounding how <em>absolutely astoundingly convuluted</em> academic writing is, and how it contributes to a toxic publishing culture in academia. The question he examines is: why is SO MUCH communication ineffective? Is it on purpose? Or is it because of what he calls the Curse of Knowledge—the difficulty we all have in imagining what it’s like not to know something we know? Pinker approached this in (duh) a really understandable way -- he is not only articulate himself, but perfectly explains how academic writing has changed over time -- from classic style, where the reader and writer are equals, and the writer is simply trying to provide a window into the world (showing not telling), to the currently popular postmodern/self-conscious style, where the goal is to not seem ignorant about one's own enterprise.</p>
<p>Check it out:</p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eI41UsSxATU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<p>The other talk in my top 3 was from Laura Carter</p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/eI41UsSxATU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br>
<hr>
<p>The other talk in my top 2 was from <a href="http://www.indiana.edu/~gender/people/foster.shtml">Laura Foster</a>, Assistant Professor of Gender Studies at Indiana U, Bloomington. She spoke on current, multi-institutional work in South Africa examining how indigenous peoples articulate the effects of climate change and their strategies for adaptation. The institutions involved are: Natural Justice, University of Cape Town, Indiana University, and and members of the Indigenous Griqua peoples. The catch here is that the researchers were forced to grapple with two conflicting ideas: to share and not to share. Indigenous Griqua peoples asked researchers to not share all their findings and wanted to give input on publication decisions, but funders want them to publish everything openly with CC licenses. </p>
<div align="center"><img src="../../img/force16_indig.jpg" height=100% width=100%></div>
<p class="caption">Photo taken by me during the conference.</p>
<p>CONTENT</p>
<p>This made me approach openness in a much different way than I ever have. Foster and her collaborators created a solution -- they developed contracts signed by everyone to protect the interests of indigenous peoples, while complying with mandates for open access by funders. Foster challenged the ideal that scholarly information should be openly shared and accessed. This is not something I ever thought to question before -- there's lots of privelege and entitlement embedded in this, and the way she called me (and everyone else) out on this assumption was not only a big game changer for me when I meet with researchers (some of whom DO work with indigenous peoples, refugees, immigrants, and other exploited peoples), but also, beyond IRB, the way researchers can protect their participants and research collaborators. I always say openness as combating intellectual colonialism, but Foster turned that on its head and it was immensely helpful.
<p>Check it out -- Foster begins at 5:03:</p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nO0f8bHAYqc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe><br>
<hr>
<p>Now, onto the fun stuff: I was able to get on stage!! This session was entittled "<a href="https://www.force11.org/meetings/force2016/program/agenda/concurrent-session-starting-right-foot-data-management">Starting Off on the Right Foot with Data Management</a>" and was run by Rebecca Boyles and Danny Kingsley. It was essentially data management and open X debate club!! Goodness it was so fun.</p>
<div align="center"><img src="../../img/force16_debate2.jpg" height=100% width=100%></div>
<p class="caption">Taken from <a href="https://twitter.com/ejglenn030/status/722214143231537152" target="_blank">this tweet</a> from Emily Glenn.</p>
<div align="center"><img src="../../img/force16_debate1.jpg" height=100% width=100%></div>
<p class="caption">Taken from <a href="https://twitter.com/charlierapple/status/722214457066127360" target="_blank">this tweet</a> from Charlie Rapple.</p>
<p>The 8 of us on stage were split into two teams: the 'For' team and the 'Against' team. We were then given ballons to pop with statements inside, such as: 'Sharing data openly is a waste of time' and others in that vein. We then had to argue, and the audience voted on who's arguments were the strongest. I was on the 'Against' team and we won!! Mostly because we were given a bunch of double-negatives, so we argued <em>for</em> openness and well-managed data.</p>
<p>If you want to hear me cuss and rant about data management sitting next to the CEO of Figshare, check it out:</p>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gj_DICR4mnw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
</div><!-- /.blog-post -->